According to the Mirror, Arsenal wrote to the first team squad this week asking them to accept a 12.5% pay cut for the next 12 months as the club looks to mitigate losses from the ongoing coronavirus situation. Various reports claim the terms were rejected.
Earlier this month, Premier League clubs unanimously agreed to ask players to take a 30% pay cut – a combination of conditional reductions and deferrals – in order to protect employees throughout the game with the current season unable to start until “it is safe and appropriate to do so”.
The PFA rejected the blanket proposal pointing out the cuts would hit the taxman hard at a time when emergency funding for the NHS has been stepped up. Since then, each club has taken on the responsibility of negotiating with their own players.
While some clubs have agreed on wage deferrals with their players, none have actually managed to persuade their players to take cuts.
Arsenal recorded losses of £27.1 million in the last financial year and are wary that failure to secure European football could cause serious damage to the club’s ability to compete for honours in the short and mid-term.
Having been knocked out of the Europa League and with eight teams above us in the Premier League, we have our work cut out if the season does get a chance to resume.
To incentivise the players, the club built a performance-based rebate into their proposal. Despite that, the Telegraph reported on Saturday that the offer was “a non-starter with many of the squad”.
The Mirror break the letter down into five key points:
- A 12.5% pay cut for 12 months from April 2020 to March 2021 (players paid in final week of each month so to start this month)
- The full amount is then refunded if Arsenal qualify for the Champions League
- If Arsenal do not qualify for the Champions League, no money is returned back
- If Arsenal fail to qualify for the Champions League, but qualify for the Europa League the cut becomes 7.5%
- If the season does not finish and/or Arsenal does not get full money from broadcasters then they will ask the players to find a “further solution”
This is an incredibly delicate situation for the club who are playing with so many known and unknown unknowns right now.
The Athletic (£) report that Arsenal’s stars are willing to agree to a wage deferral on the proviso that any player who is subsequently sold would be eligible for a refund when they leave. As things stand nobody actually knows when the transfer window might open or who might leave, so it’s hard to put a figure on potential rebates.
The report also claims that the club have asked for players to donate a week’s wages to help cover the salaries of lower-paid staff. Arsenal have promised to pay all matchday and non-matchday casual workers up until 30 April at which point they plan to review the situation.
Unable to sit around a table and actually discuss this situation face-to-face obviously makes this situation logistically difficult. As does the fact the people in charge of the club are looking to relay important financial information to players who, for the most part, are not financial experts. No doubt they, in turn, want to discuss things with their agents, lawyers and families. All of the above will slow things down even further.
In an interview with the BBC’s Football Focus that was broadcast yesterday, head coach Mikel Arteta, keenly aware of the importance of upholding the club’s image, said: “I’m very keen to see the outcome of this situation after the coronavirus and what type of club we are, what type of staff we are and the message we send to the world of who we are as a club.”
Many of us are wondering the same thing.
While I agree footballers have been targeted, they aren’t doing themselves any favours
What are you on about? They agreed to defer wages and donate to the staff. They have every right to refuse year long paycuts. ?
Where in the above article did it say the players agreed to donate to the staff?
Agree.. 12.5% isn’t that high. Companies have started firing people all across the globe. How can it be fair that in order to survive clubs fire ground level staff while the biggest earners don’t take even a paltry salary cut. Having said that, even the CXOs and heads of departments should accept these cuts and set an example for everyone.
Contracts are contracts for a reason. Not sticking up for the players here at all, but they’ve got a contract and they can stick to it
These are unprecedented times Tommy.
Unprecedented times or not, the law is still the law. The players have a right to say no. From all this though, I suspect contracts moving forward will include provisions for this type of catastrophic event so players will be forced to take cuts if the world shuts down again.
Each player is a brand in themselves, an industry in themselves.
They have employees, they have people and charities associated with themselves.
They would have also had revenue loss due appearance fee loss, brand endorsements etc.
So I would resist the urge to judge them.
If a business takes a hit, should not all the members of a business (employees) take a hit as well? Especially the highest earning ones – if that means the lower paying staff have their jobs and can actually survive.
Depends, is that company sharing revenues with staff when times are good? Those executives and shareholders who have milked this club for over a decade should take the hit now. Not the staff or players who
have only been at the club for a few years on a set salary.
The players share of the revenue generated by the club is around 60% so the answer is an unequivocal yes to the club sharing revenue during the “good” times, if you can call our recent seasons performances as the good times?!?
In comparison Kroenke has to our knowledge received 2 payments of £3m over the course of several years. Let’s put that in perspective, that’s just over 17 weeks pay for Ozil!!
There’s no real debate as to whom is milking the club!!
And how would you feel if your job made you take a 12.5% pay cut?
Depends on how much I’m earning.
If I’m on minimum wage, then I’d be mad.
If I’m earning £100,000 a year, then I’d be absolutely fine with it.
If I’m on top Premier League players’ wages, then I’d insist on an even bigger pay cut, whilst giving a slap to any fellow top Premier League player who bitches about taking a pay cut.
Maybe this is missing the point, but 12.5% of Arsenal’s player wages is about 12.5 million pounds (I think). That’s about 0.16% of Stan Kroenke’s net worth. Why isn’t he being asked to match this amount (Surely Kroenke is not being asked to donate 12.5% of his yearly earnings, is he?)? Players may be more willing to take a pay cut if they are told the boss will match the cut in donations. I know they are far richer than the average fan, and it’s good they are being asked to contribute, but there are wealthier, more connected folk who… Read more »
I think owners will be seeing much more than a 12.5% decrease in annual earnings of this goes on much longer.
The owners will be mint regardless. None of these guys like Levy or Kroenke will accept a paycut so why should the players?
That may be true, but Premier League tv revenue has risen something like 260% since the 2008-09 season.
During the same period, player salaries have increased by about 120% over the same 10 year period.
However obscene we think player wages are, the success of the Premier League has made a fortune for owners like Kroenke.
Players may not be mathematicians, but their agents and accountants are.
The money owners like Kroenke make is in the value of the equity increasing largely due to the tv contracts & in the real estate they own. Most clubs are run pretty close to breakeven with player salaries running roughly 60 percent of revenues. However that ignores that these clubs are now big businesses and also employ a lot more people than they did a decade ago. I would also point out that transfer costs have exploded which are not included in wages.
Sure, but transfer costs don’t come out of Kroenke’s pocket do they? We’re a self-sustaining club!
And Arsenal’s wage bill runs about 58% of our revenue, which is decent. Many, many Premier League clubs are way over 60%, some as high as 75%.
Doesn’t matter what other clubs do – The Arsenal should show class across the board, Kroenke included. I agree with Chakravo. Something like a matching contribution from Kroenke towards his employees would be good leadership and good PR.
Arsenal is a business investment to Kroenke (basically all PL clubs are at this point sans City which is for good publicity). Prior to covid we were a club with an increasingly dreary financial outlook largely down to several seasons of Europa league performances on a Champions league budget. That would have needed to be addressed this year anyways either via us making the CL or moving the squad towards younger and cheaper players. Now thanks to Covid our financial situation is likely to be far worse off. Depending on how long this goes on Kroenke might need to make… Read more »
“There’s no reason for Kroenke to simply give the club money”. He’s the 3rd richest club owner in the league after Sheikh Mansour and Roman Abramovich. And other wealthy sports team owners are pitching in, either to cover salaries for workers, or to aid on the medical side. The Agnelli family who own Juventus are donating about 10 million euros to the Italy’s national health service. Steve Ballmer, who owns the LA Clippers has donated about $5 million, plus he’s making sure staff are paid to the end of the NBA season. Mark Cuban, who owns the Dallas Mavericks, has… Read more »
For the love of our Club, legally Stan is his own entity and Arsenal is its own entity. Let Arsenal FC continue mitigating this situation on its own. Especially as it seems able to. I would care less if Stan did any charity in the frame of our Club…… At least it’s now we appreciate our pride as an Arsenal community.
“There’s no reason for Kroenke to simply give the club money”. You then go on to mention a number of billionaires who have made altruistic donations to healthcare or other organisations. Not the football club. Sorry but this kind of conflation is false. It is wonderful for people like Abramovuch to donate to healthcare. Of course when you have made your money the way he made his then perhaps less so. But the point made still remains. There is no reason for Kroenke to simply give the club money. Abramovuch doesn’t. His money is all there in zero percent, immediately… Read more »
I wrote “team owners are pitching in, either to cover salaries for workers, or to aid on the medical side”.
And of course Abramovich has given Chelsea money. You, me and my pet dog know he will never ask them to return the €1.38 billion he’s GIFTED that club.
Abramovich hasn’t given Chelsea anything, he’s invested in his own business and would be converted into equity if the club was ever sold.
This is classic Wengerism, it is not illegal to invest in your own business!!
“Abramovich hasn’t given Chelsea anything”
What a wally brain!
Abramovich has invested in his own business, in much the same way as any business owner invests.
If a business person buys an existing coffee shop and decides to replace the coffee machine and coffee cups are they gifting these items or are they investing in their new business?
kaius. couple of things here. 1. You have no idea whether Kroenke has or hasn’t donated as a lot of people don’t announce their donations simply for the good publicity it creates. 2. A huge chunk of tv money will have to be repaid if the season is not finished. I’m not sure when that is obligated to occur. 3. We’re also looking at the season likely finishing behind close doors which will cost us roughly 2m per home game. Add in crashing out of the Europa league will have financial implications as well. 4 as of now Arsenal has… Read more »
Atom, You’re wrong and uninformed on too many basic facts. You’re wrong about TV money having to be refunded. Both Sky Sports and BT Sports’ position is: the season has been postponed, not cancelled. Do your research and stop making assumptions. Thank you for pointing out that wealthy people don’t always make their philanthropy public. But you also have NO CLUE what sacrifices and donations individual players have made to charities in the UK or in their home countries. Yet you still attacked them. And when some of us ask, “hey what’s Kroenke contributing?” you jump out defending his honour… Read more »
Atom,
“I get you want the players to just write checks but that’s not how most footballers operate”
You get it now? Find a better argument.
Kaius – you seem to lack a basic understanding of how economics of business works. The players can refuse the cut which is well within their rights but the hit to revenue will eventually be passed on to them via lower salaries & transfer fees (which they receive cut of). Owners are not going to simply subsidize the changes economics via pumping cash in – any cash put in will be in the form of a loan. Ultimately wages & transfer fees are coming down. How big the economic hit is will determine by how much
Atom, you don’t handle people having different opinions very well do you? I happen to believe top-level players have earned their contracts. They should take full comfort in English contract law. As clubs didn’t put “in the event of a pandemic we will reduce your pay”, they have to PERSUADE players to take a pay cut. Wayne Rooney was right, you don’t PERSUADE anyone using bullying tactics like by singling them out, or doing what you do on here – generalising all players as “lazy” and “selfish”. Those tactics haven’t worked out so well have they mate? Keep listing all… Read more »
Kaius – do you actually take the time to read or just spout off responses? No where did I say the players need to take immediate pay cuts but rather disputed your argument that Kroenke needs to just put a bunch of money into the club via equity. The fact is the global economy is collapsing and Arsenal’s finances were a mess prior to this. Spending is going down at the club baring us making the CL -that’s just reality. Fewer and fewer clubs in the PL operate under the owners just endlessly bankroll spending – pretty much Citeh is… Read more »
Atom, stop being hyperbolic.
UEFA are not going to kick a club out of Europe because it’s billionaire owner and millionaire players stepped in to pay salaries for club employees during a global health crisis.
Thought I read the TV money comes in every month by month. I read in France , the TV company not pay in April and may’s to keep themselves afloat. As no money in from sport TV subscriptions during this period.
Does anybody know if the TV money comes in one lump sum or month by month. How would they know how many games arsenal playing in early season ,? As we don’t know how far in cup tournament s we go! And if in title or important end of season games or postponed reschedule d games !
Broadcast revenue is mostly paid up front. That’s why tv companies have so much influence over the timing of our fixtures.
Here’s an article about that, and the prize money being advanced to clubs: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-soccer-england/premier-league-clubs-to-get-advance-payments-over-covid-19-the-times-idUKKCN21R0G6)
That’s not why TV companies have so much influence on the timing of fixtures, it’s because the premier league sells the fixtures in time slots
Yes, time slots that the TV companies can change right up to the last minute.
We’re saying the same thing – you just like arguing for argument’s sake.
No, what you said was wrong, they don’t have influence in fixture times because they pay up front. They have influence over time slots because the packages of TV rights are sold in time slots
I thought this, if Stan needs money for Arsenal he takes out loans like Glazers do with United. He won’t put his own cash in. When he can take if necessary 100m+ loans out to keep us afloat I guess the agents know this .. So question Do we want the players paid in full or the club in bigger and bigger debt restricting future transfers ?? The reason to full pay the players is so they do not walk for free from contracts which is breached. A player like ozil will never attract a transfer fee until he is… Read more »
Easy to talk about other people showing class, so long as it doesn’t come out from your own pocket eh!
Very true. Hard to argue with that
Not that this is in anyway a Morally/Ethically excusable reason, but if you’re Stan, and you own half a dozen sports franchises as well as various other businesses, all employing lots of folk, you would have a hard time justifying why you paid into Arsenal and not all the others. If he does it for one, there would be immense pressure for him to do it to the rest. I get that while he is a billionaire the sums we are talking about are change to him, but the principle would apply. They didn’t get to be as wealthy as… Read more »
I understand what you are saying (if Kroenke gives up $12.5 million for every sports club he owns he loses about $63 million! That’s 0.9% of his reported net worth. Would I donate 0.9% of my net worth? Sure, already done, but that’s a tiny amount). What I’m suggesting instead is that he take some leadership, show the players that he is making more sacrifices than he’s asking them to make (in part because Arsenal does not have profit-sharing with players). Look, I know players make a lot of money. It’s far more vital that the support and gameday staff… Read more »
Are you telling me that Arsenal the club hasn’t lost 12.5% of its value since the start of the lock down?
As things stand the FTSE 100 has lost over 22% of it’s value since February 21 this year, to say owners aren’t taking on any of the losses is a complete load of rubbish.
You can’t just look at the last few months. The value of Premier League clubs has nearly doubled in the last decade.
The owners profited when times were good, so they must be prepared to lose some now that times are bad. They also have the option of seeling their shares and still making huge profits.
Why should players insulate owners from free market forces?
You’re not really thinking this through are you?
Players will pay for this either now through a pay cut or in the future with greatly reduced wages when contracts get renegotiated.
Players can either act in good faith and hope their short term sacrifice enables the club to absorb the short term loses and the finances rebound quickly or they can force the club to cut cost in other directions and pay the price in the future.
Maybe knowing there’ll be less on offer at the next contract negotiation is making players think twice about accepting cuts now?
This is why the leadership of executives and owners is so important. At the end of the day, negotiations will end in some kind of agreement on wage cuts across the board.
In the meantime, maybe learn to see both sides of an argument my friend.
I see why you think the owner should pay, I just don’t agree with it because it makes no sense.
Kroenke is not going to pay! This is very simple, the club will pay by making savings.
If you were an Arsenal fan you would see the best solution for the long term future of the club would be if the players take a pay cut. Or maybe you’d prefer it to come out of our transfer budget?
No. My argument is not ‘the owner should pay’.
I think the owner and board should all contribute. That’s what happened at Atletico Madrid who were the first major club to announce pay cuts.
“If you were an Arsenal fan”.. really?
I’ve been a fan since 1988. Please learn to debate without being such a dick.
You haven’t said that at all, you’ve said Kroenke’s a billionaire and can afford the loss.
It goes without question that any pay cut the players take should be matched by other senior staff, executives and management,
I did say it, my words were: learn to debate without being such a dick.
Maybe you can learn to debate without the name calling
Agree with you. Kroenke somehow managed to find money somewhere to donate it to Donald Trump’s campaign but now where there is a crisis, he is actually doing nothing. He is the owner of the club and by contributing something, players will follow his lead.
He probably got some business help back from Trump , it was a investment not s donation. One hand washing the other .politics urh
Nice to know we’re in this together ?
Furlough the players and the club covers the £2.5k a month rather than use the government fund. Simple. Let the PFA deal with that.
That’s illegal. They aren’t paid a weekly wage they have contracts. If they don’t play they earn less. If the season is cut short or abandoned they will be paid less, but they must still be paid unless they do something that warrants them being sacked.
So, here’s what my company is doing, it’s really not too difficult for arsenal to reflect this or something similar. CEO and board level are taking no wages or bonuses until business reopens senior managers (including myself) are taking 20% cuts but continuing to work. middle managers and below are being furloughed with company making up anyone that would earn more than the furloughed amount. Do I want to take a 20% pay cut and work as hard as before? No Could my company survive and pay me in full? Yes But there is a point of doing what is… Read more »
I have been asking for this during normal time. The justification, fans give here for these wages is that players are the one giving performances that generate the money. Well, nobody is performing at the moment so it should be no money paid. I totally agree that there are other people who were already born rich and now flying in business jets out of hard and dangerous work done by people on minimum wages and asking governments to pay for the losses caused to them by COVID-19. This economic system is collapsing as well so it does not justify wages… Read more »
Greedy. So many people furloughed or out of work in a time of crisis and these pampered players can’t take a paycut for a year, which theyd get back if they pull their socks up and qualify for the champions league anyway. We fans have an irrational love towards our clubs, but quite frankly fuck the majority of modern footballers. Maybe I for one wont get so irate and defensive for them next time one gets diabyed, Ramseyed or Eduardoed. Maybe the club remembers and dont stick by them seeing as their putting the future of the club they play… Read more »
Even Spurs do not deserve to be Eduardoed.
Didn’t wish nor say they deserve to be eduardoed.
Said on a personal level I wont be letting it bother me should it happen again. If multi millionaires cant see past the pound note in a time of crisis then couldn’t give a fishes tit for them.
Juventus’ players are forfeiting 100% of their salaries for the good of the club and low income club staff.
Kroenke paid an estimated £1,050,000,000 for Arsenal.
The club is valued at £1.8billion.
He’s made roughly £750million.
He’s never put a penny in, he’s taken £6million out that we’re aware of, and he also used the clubs accounts to pay the fees involved in his takeover.
I’m with the players on this, I wouldn’t accept a pay cut either.
Kroenke is worth $10 billion, and his wife isn’t short of money either.
He can sell one of his ranches to pay his staff.
Or he could just shut the club down, knock down the stadium and build some flats
Bit disappointed that the players aren’t up for doing this. A 12.5% cut seems quite small compared to how much money they are on.
I think this should be a revolution for football contracts. Instead of giving players ridiculous contracts, it should be more towards performance based. Pay them good money, but not ridiculous money. Let them earn it, let them fight for it.
So you only get paid if you play? Goodbye squads. Hello 11 players at each club, plus the three part-timers who are only really in it for the fun of playing a few minutes a month.
Not pay as you play. Let’s say a player right now gets 200k per week. Instead give him 100k per week, and make the other 100k into a bonus, like goals, assist, no goals allowed, make top 4, win a cup, play 80% of games. Something like that with more detail.
Maybe giving players shorter, performance-based contracts makes sense right now, but in reality it would be terrible for clubs and the League as a whole, because it makes it even easier for wealthier clubs or richer Leagues to pick off talent from poorer clubs in poorer countries. It’s also a generalisation to say Premier League players are on “ridiculous” money. Yes Alexis Sanchez is, and a handful of top earners are, but the average Premier League salary is about 3 million pounds a year. For a league that generates nearly 5 billion pounds a year in TV revenue that’s not… Read more »
That is not what he means, clearly. This kind of reductio ad absurdum is unhelpful.
It’s also not helpful to suggest football players don’t fight for or earn their salaries.
Don’t let the current anti-player climate fool you. The vast majority of them make incredible sacrifices at a very young age to get to this level.
For me, the most important thing is that the non-playing staff get paid fully and not a single penny of taxpayers’ money goes to the club. We are in extraordinary times and the players and the PFA should realise this. The players should agree to any pay cut necessary that ensures nobody gets furloughed or laid off over the coming months. And Stan should not profit from this: he should not use this opportunity to save operating cash. In fact, he should be donating some of his huge fortune to the NHS. The PFA boss has demonstrated to the world… Read more »
Fuck me, did I just agree with Fat Gooner?
the worlds truly gone mad.
I think the only concern with this plan, which is completely reasonable, is, as you say, the question of whether or not Stan and his family would actually be making these moves as underhanded ploys to profit. I certainly hope that wouldn’t be the case, but I do wonder if that’s a question that some players (or at least their representatives) have posed. Who would know if Stan does do something shady? I also would like to see this only enacted with caveats: that of course no non-playing staff lose their jobs or wages, and that Josh and others take… Read more »
Agree with that on the whole, though want to point out that Arsenal (and other football clubs) are taxpayers too. Arguably they’re entitled to as much support as, say, Virgin Atlantic or Whetherspoons.
Richard Branson pays tax? I didn’t know that.
Big challenges ahead for clubs, can anyone seriously envisage 60,000 people allowed into a stadium in 6 months time !
15000 at most for Arsenal. People are going to want to keep up the social distancing, just in case.
An incentive that’s not achievable is taking the mickey. We lost out on European football because of Emery, maybe the idiots that hired him and refused to fire him should donate all their salary and then there would be no problem. I’m sure the players will help out if necessary, but so should everyone else, starting with the fat cats at the top.
If this is enough to keep the club running, it seems fair. Many people not working are simply not getting paid.
What I object to is footballers being singled out as if they are the only high earners. Bankers never paid back what we gave them as a bailout and the royal family continue to take tax money as if nothing happened.
Im all for players doing their part and i believe tthey should. But when do the owner get to take hit in anticipation of all the looses to come.
Hi, A probably naive question, but it really makes me wondering. What is the loss right now for Arsenal? Surely, we don’t know if the competitions will go on but also for sure we know that there is no final decision for them to stop. So, in the case that all competitions continue (and assuming the games are played with fans), will there be any loss? Looks like a postponement to me, what am i missing? So, why are players/staff asked to cut wages (for a year!) and not wait and see what happens? If there’s a cash flow prob… Read more »
Players contracts are running down but we’re not getting any income.
The players refusing out of hand a payment system based on actual performance says a lot about the character of our team.
But it’s pretty unrealistic all things considered. And you could argue that the board are just as culpable for our lack of CL football through poor recruitment, players and manager. Will they also take a pay cut if we fail to qualify?
Bellerin should step aside – he clearly hasn’t got a clue about anything.
HOW ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT?
OWNERS?
A thought, and not a well considered one: Take the hit, pay the players and the staff. Assuming most other clubs (those not included already operate on a completely different level such as Man City), when we return and negotiate extensions and contracts with new signings, clubs take the responsable step of no longer paying anyone above a certain level. Pay in football is mental. Of course it’s based on TV income but fuck it, if all clubs got together they could actually drastically lower the amount footballers earn. Let’s imagine players only earning 150k per week, instead of 300k.… Read more »
The way it’s set out with a sliding scale of deductions ranging from 12.5% to nothing if we qualify for the champions league seems like a very measured and reasonable response by the club, it’s certainly considerably less than the 30% that was originally being touted. Of course you would want certain conditions placed to accepting, you would want management, executives and board members to take the same terms and no dividends to be paid probably over the next 3 years to the owners, other than that i see no reason as to why this isn’t accepted. Unlike Arseblog, I… Read more »
I don’t get how billionaire owners can be irrelevant. They’ve made an investment and it’s taken a hit, they should bear the brunt of that just as they would get lion’s share in good times. That’s not to say players shouldn’t take a cut, but owners should do their bit as well. How you divide up that burden is an open question.
Because it’s a cashflow issue and contrary to what you say the players not the owners receive the lion’s share of the cash (approx 60%) the only cutback that can realistically make a difference is their wages, it’s not difficult to understand.
The alternative is to cut costs somewhere else, as again contrary to what you say, the owners don’t really take any money out, so the options are;
1. Cutting most of the non-playing staff and most probably the women’s team.
Or
2. Selling the stadium and/or the training ground,
Take your pick?
I’m sorry but I call total BS. He’s a billionaire, so is his wife. If there’s a cash flow issue, he has the cash. So yes he can meet the players halfway at least, cutting elsewhere is not the only alternative. Arguably the 12.5% cut is him meeting them halfway, considering the prem originally wanted 30%, but we’re not privy to those negotiations. Even if Kronke doesn’t take money out, he still obviously benefits if his asset appreciates in value. It’s ludicrous to suggest that he makes nothing from owning Arsenal. If it depreciates he obviously should take a hit… Read more »
Why’s it bullshit? For a start, the club as an asset has lost considerable value over the last month or so. There’s no indication of when this is going to end and when football finally starts it’s quite possible that social distancing will dictate that matches be played behind closed doors for quite some time. Gate receipts account for approx 25% of our revenue. Also tell me, where does the club sit in relation to FFP if Kroenke puts his own cash into the club? Will we have to balance the books in future years? If so, that’ll come out… Read more »
I know this is a bit late and sort of off topic but this https://arseblog.com/2020/04/players-launch-nhs-initiative-lets-see-others-step-up-now/ was one of the best articles I’ve read on Arseblog since I started to read it way back
whenever it actually began. Well done Andrew.